Th

e N

ort

he

as

t R

eg

ion

al

Ce

nte

r fo

r R

ura

l D

ev

elo

pm

en

t

A n

n u

a l

R e

p o

r t

2006

©2007 The Northeast Regional Center for Rural DevelopmentThe Pennsylvania State University

Center StaffStephan J. Goetz, Ph.D.Director and ProfessorWalter WhitmerAssociate DirectorPamela A. HearnBusiness and Web ManagerPamela K. HilemanStaff Assistant

Center-Affi liated StaffRod Howe, Ph.D., Cornell UniversityRegional Program CoordinatorXiao MengGraduate Research AssistantSundar ShresthaResearch Associate

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development receives core funds from USDA’s CSREES and the Northeast-ern Regional Association of State Agricul-tural Experiment Station Directors.

Board of DirectorsDr. Paul BeckerWest Virginia University

Dr. Helene DillardCornell University

Dr. Thomas FretzUniversity of Maryland – College Park

Dr. Douglas LantagneUniversity of Vermont

Dr. Sally MaggardUSDA CSREES/ECS

Mr. John C. MartinCARET Delegate – Delaware State University

Dr. Bruce McPheron (chair)Penn State University

Mr. Richard ReederUSDA/ERS

Dr. Stephen D. ReilingMaine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station

Dr. Stephen SmithPenn State University

Mr. William WoodrumWest Virginia State University

Contact InformationThe Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development7 Armsby BuildingPenn State UniversityUniversity Park, PA 16802-5602

Phone: (814) 863-4656Fax: (814) 863-0586e-mail: nercrd@psu.eduhttp://nercrd.psu.edu/ This material is based upon work supported

by annual base funding through the Coopera-tive State Research, Education and Extension Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Any opinions, fi ndings, conclusions or recommenda-tions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily refl ect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or of other funders.

Page

Accomplishments 2006 ........................................................................................................................ 1

Forging Regional Dialog and Collaboration ................................................................................. 3

Creating and Sharing New Knowledge for Rural Development ...........................................13

Other Scholarly Works .......................................................................................................................17

Networking Regionally and Nationally .......................................................................................19

Expanding the Regional Funding Portfolio ...............................................................................21

Table of Contents

2006 Annual Report onAccomplishments

2006 Annual Report 1

Accomplishments2006

While some areas in the northeastern U.S. region suffer from population loss, persistent poverty and economic stagnation, others are experiencing tremendous growth spillovers from urban centers. In this context, a key Northeast Center mission is to increase the capacity of residents in rural regions and communities to deal with those local problems that involve public sector decision-making. We achieve our mission by developing, integrating, synthesizing and delivering research-based knowl-edge to help community decision-makers trace out the anticipated and unanticipated consequences of alternative policy designs.

Specifi c on-going priorities include:

• Helping communities on the rural-urban fringe in making more rational land-use decisions through data-based models and analyses

• Promoting community based agricultural development and small farm clusters through improved networking

• Understanding the community characteristics and public interventions that enhance or discourage entrepreneurship

• Identifying new methods and policies to reduce persistent poverty • Identifying the causes and consequences of youth out-migration (the brain drain), including

the role of government fragmentation

During the last year we were fortunate to work closely with Rod Howe of Cornell University, as regional program coordinator. Through his leadership four networks have been established in the region to address specifi c questions related to land use and to entrepreneurship.

Recent research provides compelling evidence of the power and importance of networks and hu-man interactions in assuring societal progress, whether within organizations, communities or regions. As in years past we extend deep appreciation to our networks of collaborators and contributors within the region and beyond. Without them, the accomplishments described in this Annual Report 2006 would not have been possible.

Stephan J. GoetzDirector

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development2

The Northeast Regional Center sponsored or co-sponsored four workshops in 2006 to facili-tate the exchange of research-based information and to enhance the capacity of extension educa-tors in the region to address critical emerging issues. Workshops provided information on how communication and information technologies are impacting rural communities and addressed issues related to land use and economic develop-ment, including the “creative class.”

Regional Workshops and Conferences, Sponsored and Co-Sponsored

Connecting Rural Communities: Cooperative Extension as a Catalyst, Sheraton Society Hill, Philadelphia, PA, June 6-7, 2006. Facilitated by Bill Shuffstall. http://www.nercrd.psu.edu/ConnectingCommunities/ConnectingCommunities.html

The Northeast Center sponsored or co-sponsored the following four workshops in 2006:

Connecting Rural Communities: Cooperative Extension as a Catalyst Building Entrepreneurial Communities The Creative Economy: Implications for Rural Areas NEELUN, Northeast Extension Land Use Network

2006 Annual Report 3

This hands-on conference provided an in-depth understanding of how technology is impacting rural communities and how Cooperative Extension staff in all program areas can use the processes and materials in the guide to help community leaders (agricultural, youth, government, healthcare, education, business) identify and implement projects that improve their community’s digital development. Twenty two individuals attended the workshop from twelve states, fi ve from the northeast region (ME, VT, NY, PA, WV) and seven other states (OH, VA, OK, KY, MI, MN and ND). Attendees included representatives from Cooperative Extension, state and local government education, and community development foundations.

Forging Regional Dialogand Collaboration

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development4

The Connecting Communities online guide (http://www.connectingcommunities.info) was intro-duced at the conference; the Connecting Rural Communities project is sponsored and funded by the Southern Rural Development Center/RRDCs through the 2005 Rural E-Commerce Extension Initiative Grants Program. Group discussion was encouraged and suggestions were made for improving the online guide. The conference increased understanding among participants of the role of broadband in future economic development. It provided an opportu-nity for professionals across the region to come together and discuss similarities and challenges and to strengthen multi-state programming networks.

Outcomes of the conference include: 1) work-shop participants acquired a greater understand-ing of the role of advanced telecommunications services in the global economy and the impact that this has on the economies of rural com-munities in the United States; 2) workshop participants received an in-depth introduction to the role(s) Cooperative Extension can play in helping community leaders increase the diffusion and adoption of information technologies to improve community economic and social well-being; 3) workshop participants in New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are developing pilot Connecting Communities projects in their

states; 4) the Northeast Region group working on entrepreneurship programming is consider-ing how to integrate components of connecting rural communities into programs that focus on developing entrepreneurial communities; and 5) a fl edgling network of specialists and extension educators interested in the impact of the dif-fusion and adoption of digital technologies on community development is being developed.

Building Entrepreneurial Communities, Sheraton Society Hill, Philadelphia, PA, June 7-8, 2006. Facilitated by Rod Howe

The entrepreneurship strategic planning confer-ence was held in conjunction with the Connect-ing Rural Communities Conference; the meet-ing involved representation from seven (ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, VT, WV) Northeast states. Key researchers and extension professionals came together and sketched a three year plan of work for research and extension programming

2006 Annual Report 5

to support multi-state rural entrepreneurship development collaborations. Two general theme areas will be further developed, one on youth and entrepreneurship and the other focusing on entrepreneurially-friendly communities. James McConnon (ME) chairs the youth entrepreneur-ship group; Mary Peabody (VT)/Rod Howe (NY) are leading the group that is researching community supported entrepreneurship issues. Listservs and networks have been established to further communication.

Opportunities and Challenges Facing the Rural Creative Economy, June 13-14, 2006, Mystic, CT; in conjunction with the 2006 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association annual meeting, with Todd Gabe, University of Massachusetts. http://www.regionalscience.org/pdfs/NAREA%20WORKSHOP.pdf

This workshop, which was sponsored by The Northeast Regional Center, featured keynote speakers and selected papers on the opportuni-ties and challenges that nonmetropolitan areas face in the attraction and retention of creative talent (i.e., Richard Florida’s “Creative Class”). Workshop objectives were to (1) disseminate current research on the rural creative economy, (2) establish a framework for policy discussion, and (3) identify areas of interest and support for future work.

Workshop Agenda and Presentation Abstracts

Welcome – NAREA President Harry Kaiser, Cornell University

The Rural Creative Economy: Dimensions, Experiments, PolicyAnn Markusen, Director, Project on Regional and Industrial Economics, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota

http://www.nercrd.psu.edu/CreativeEconomy/MarkusenPaper.pdf

Export base theory – that overall growth is a function of external sales – dominates economic development practice. But the consumption base can also serve as a growth driver. Communities can make investments that will induce residents to divert expenditures into local purchases, at-tract new and footloose residents and tourists, and revitalize aging town centers. Markusen presented the analytics for a consumption base theory and demonstrated how cultural invest-ments prompt growth. Elements of rural cultur-al strategy were reviewed, emphasizing the role of artists as leaders and arts councils as commu-nity facilitators.

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development6

The Creative Economy Practitioner’s Toolkit: Strategies for Maximizing ResourcesSusan Christopherson, Suzanne Loker and Susan Monagan, Cornell Universityhttp://www.nercrd.psu.edu/CreativeEconomy/MonaganPaper.pdf

Nine strategies were presented that can be used by practitioners to develop and implement cre-ative economy initiatives. These were developed through research and discussion with practi-tioners engaged in successful initiatives. The emphasis is on initiatives that provide evidence of campus-community collaborations in rural towns and regions of New York State.

Craftspersons and Artists in Northwest Wisconsin: Putting a Face on a Creative IndustryJerry Hembd, Andrew Dane and Beverly Stencel, University of Wisconsin Superiorhttp://www.nercrd.psu.edu/CreativeEconomy/HembdPaper.pdf

Creative Economy RoundtableHeidi Hamilton, Film Division DirectorConnecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism

Kathryn Hunt, Research AssociateMargaret Chase Smith Policy Center

Jane Preston, Director of ProgramsNew England Foundation for the Arts

The Creative Economy and Quality of Life in Rural Areas and Small CitiesStephen Sheppard, Director, Center for Creative Community Development, Williams Collegehttp://www.nercrd.psu.edu/CreativeEconomy/SheppardPaper.pdf

Emoting with Their Feet? Migration to Artistic HavensTimothy R. Wojan, David A. McGranahan and Dayton Lambert, Economic Research Service, USDAhttp://www.nercrd.psu.edu/CreativeEconomy/WojanPaper.pdf

2006 Annual Report 7

A central conjecture of the creative class con-struct is that creative people are attracted to those places most conducive to creative activity. Findings of an association between the share of employment in the arts and various indicators of economic dynamism provide plausible support for this conjecture. As such, artists serve as an indicator species for the presence of a “cre-ative milieu,” which also attracts highly creative workers and entrepreneurs. We explicitly test this conjecture by fi rst modeling the 1990 share of employment in the arts at the county level, and then using the residual from this regression to explain differences in various measures of economic dynamism between 1990 and 2000. Our results support the hypothesis that an unobserved creative milieu that attracts artists increases local economic dynamism.

The Residential Preferences of Rural Canada’s Future Creative ClassClive Lovett and Kenneth Beesley, Brandon Universityhttp://www.nercrd.psu.edu/CreativeEconomy/LovettPaper.pdf

Spatial Analysis of Rural Economic Development Using a Regional Adjustment Model and Locally Weighted RegressionSeongHoon Cho, SeungGyu Kim, Christopher D. Clark and William M. Park, University of Tennesseehttp://www.nercrd.psu.edu/CreativeEconomy/ChoPaper.pdf

This study used locally weighted regression to identify county-level characteristics that serve as drivers of creative employment throughout the Southern US. Higher per capita income, greater infrastructure investments and the rural nature of a county tended to promote creative employment density, while higher scores on a natural amenity index had the opposite effect. The authors were also able to identify and map clusters of rural counties where the marginal ef-fects of these variables on creative employment

density were greatest. These fi ndings help rural communities to promote creative employment growth as a means of furthering rural economic development.

Evaluating a Proposed Relocation of a Local Historic MillVishakha Maskey, Cheryl Brown, Alan R. Collins and Hala Nassar, West Virginia Universityhttp://www.nercrd.psu.edu/CreativeEconomy/MaskeyPaper.pdf

While historians believe that preserving a his-toric building in its original location is important to maintain its historical integrity, the general public’s opinion on this matter is not known. Survey data were gathered from local residents regarding a proposed relocation of a historic mill in rural West Virginia. A minority of the sample population supported keeping the mill open in its original location. Willingness-to-pay to preserve the mill in its original location was estimated at $8.45 for a one-time donation for the sample; $2.29 after adjusting for non-respon-dents using characteristics of the local popula-tion. The entire economic value of preservation ($91,000) was enough to cover some, but not all, of the costs of keeping the mill open at its original location.

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development8

The Value of Creativity in the Northeastern United StatesTodd Gabe, University of Mainehttp://www.nercrd.psu.edu/CreativeEconomy/GabePaper.pdf

This paper examines the effects of local work-force creativity on county-level earnings. De-scriptive analysis of the data showed that most of the high-creativity counties in the United States are part of metropolitan areas, and that employee earnings are high in these places. Re-gression results indicate that, other things being equal, workforce creativity enhances county-level labor earnings. However, the returns to creativ-ity found in the paper were confi rmed only in the urban context. An extension of the analy-sis suggested that the creative workforce wage premium may be capturing the effects of other technical skills (e.g., mathematics) on earnings.

NEELUN, Northeast Extension Land Use Network fall meeting, October 11-12, 2006, Holiday Inn Airport, Philadelphia, PA. Facilitated by Rod Howe.

The Northeast Land Grant Land Use (NEELUN) Strategic Planning meeting was held October 11-12, 2006 at the Holiday Inn Airport, Philadelphia. The meeting was an opportu-nity for key researchers and extension faculty and educators to come together and develop a three year plan of work for multi-state land use research and extension programming. Meet-ing attendees were from seven northeast states and Washington, DC; participants represented Agricultural and Environmental Economics, Community and Economic Vitality, Extension, research, and USDA-CSREES. A listserv has been established for members of the NEELUN network. The two working groups that formed

2006 Annual Report 9

from this meeting were an Agriculture Planning Group and a Housing Group. Each group will work on outlining issues that were discussed within the group, networking and disseminat-ing their fi ndings. Members of each group will communicate via conference calls and listservs.

In the Planning StageConference on the Science and Education of Land Use: A transatlantic, multidisciplinary and comparative approach (TALUC).http://www.nercrd.psu.edu/TALUC

The conference, scheduled for September 24-26, 2007 in Washington, DC, explores the causes and consequences of current land use trends related to society, economy and environment. It will identify the major drivers of land use and address the questions of what will happen if we keep doing what we are doing now, and what alternative measures could strengthen the sustainable use of natural resources in rural and suburban areas. Projections of future land uses are examined along with the question of how science can help society make more rational land use decisions.

The conference will explore the trade-offs among broad benefi ts and costs of alternative land uses. We invite papers that project future land uses and examine the question of how sci-ence can serve society in making more rational local and regional land use decisions. An impor-tant and unique aspect of the conference is the emphasis on transatlantic (Europe/US) compari-sons.

The conference also seeks to promote scien-tifi c exchanges among researchers at US and European Universities who are addressing land use-related issues. Scientists will share experi-ences from research on the challenges ahead related to future land use patterns. Special efforts will be made to translate the conference fi ndings for teaching purposes and to outline the main features of trans-national and trans-disciplinary curricula on future land use changes. A transat-lantic, multi-disciplinary and comparative ap-proach is adopted and the cause/consequences frame, along with policy options, will be used to develop classroom curricula. The need for this conference arises out of the growing complexity of land use issues: It is clear that individual disci-plines in isolation are unable to provide effective and comprehensive answers. Contributions are invited from all relevant academic disciplines.

The primary audience of the conference is academic scientists and graduate students. The conference will include a strong focus on educa-tion and curricula issues as they relate to improv-ing our ability to embark on multidisciplinary research regarding land use. A limited number of civil society representatives, elected leaders, policymakers and private decision makers are invited to be informed about the current state of knowledge on the science of land use.

We will identify training programs for civil servants and other key players involved in the design and implementation of land use policies. We will explore the possibility of transatlantic

The Interuniversity Consortium for Agricultural and Related Sciences in Europe

co-operation in the development of training programs for senior staff.

Abstracts for contributed papers are invited in the following topic areas:

A. Land use and ecosystem interactions.B. Assessment tools for sustainable develop- ment.C. Socioeconomic, demographic, and other fac- tors of land use change (incl. housing afford- ability).D. Agricultural profi tability (incl. ecosystem valuation, multi-functionality, bio-based fuels).E. Protecting working landscapes (incl. labor and land management issues).F. Land use and water interactions and quan- tity/quality issues.G. Climate change and land use/land cover in- teractions.H. Land use and human health (vector-borne diseases, obesity, etc.).I. Equity and property rights issues.J. Managing public lands and protected areas.K. Land use policy making, effectiveness, al- ternatives, consequences (impacts).L. Real estate and related development issues.M. Other

Approach or Method

1. Transatlantic comparison2. Multi-disciplinary/integrated3. Database-related and modeling (current, planned, needed)4. Teaching/course curricula5. Natural sciences6. Social sciences

Expected Conference Outcomes

- Synthesis of existing knowledge, identifi cation of gaps in current knowledge and future re- search needs.

- Explicit comparisons of land use issues and approaches to their resolution in Europe and in the US.

- Increased cooperation among scientists across the Atlantic; submission of joint research pro- posals.

- Increased sharing of curricula, student ex- changes, and enhanced student experiences.

- One or more edited books containing confer- ence papers. Commercial publishers on both continents have expressed strong potential interest in publishing a synthesis from the conference.

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development10

2006 Annual Report 11

2005-2006 Workshops Sponsored or Co-sponsored by The Northeast Center

Ithaca

Linthicum

Burlington

Philadelphia

State College

ConcordSyracuse

Charleston Annapolis

Mystic

Indicates Location of WorkshopIndicates Location of Listening Session

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development12

Map Showing Participants’ Home Institution/City

Portland

Bucksport

ConwayBethlehem

Gilford

Salamanca TroyAlbany

Glens Falls

Potsdam

Canton

Amherst(UMass)

Burlington(UVT)

Pennsville

Morgantown(WVU)

Summersville

Hurricane

LancasterBridgeville

Beaver Falls

Waynesburg

Pittston

Annapolis

Chestertown

Princess Anne

Oswego

Durham (UNH)

Ithaca (Cornell)

New Brunswick (Rutgers)

Orono (UME)

Plymouth (PSU)Berlin(UVT)

Washington DC

Baltimore

Groton

CorningPort Allegany

Danville

Milford Kingston

Newport

Brooklyn

Trenton

Morristown

Harrisburg (PSU)

State College(PSU)

2006 Annual Report 13

The Center contributed to the generation and transmission of new knowledge through its newsletter as well as the numbered Rural Devel-opment Paper (RDP) series. The study funded by the E. M. Kauffman Foundation (RDP 33) expanded on previous research of factors affect-ing non-farm entrepreneurship or self-employ-ment.

Network06 NewsletterFour Issues of Network06, vol. 21, Nos. 1-4.A Quarterly Newsletter for Northeast Rural Development. URL: http://www.cas.nercrd.psu.edu/Publications/newsletter.html

From the Director columns, published quarterly in Network06

“Where Have All The Young Folks Gone?”(no. 1), March 2006“Building a 21st Century Rural Workforce”(no. 2), June 2006“Are We Poised for a Renaissance in the North-east?” (no. 3), September 2006“Explaining Self-Employment Success and Fail-ure” (no. 4), December 2006

Rural Development Paper SeriesGoetz, Stephan J., September 2006, RDP No. 33, “The Place-Based Structural Determinants and Effects of Self-Employment,” fi nal report to the E.M. Kauffman Foundation. 64pp.http://www.nercrd.psu.edu/Publications/rdppapers/rdp33.pdf

This study expands on previous research by in-cluding a wider set of local economic and com-munity factors affecting non-farm entrepreneur-ship or self-employment than have previously been considered. These factors affect both the rates of and returns to self-employment in US counties. In the county-level regression analyses, individual-level sociodemographic variables cap-ture the characteristics of the population pool from which the self-employed are drawn. These individual-level factors are distinguished from local county characteristics that affect self-em-ployment or proprietorship formations. Some of the latter variables are subject to policy infl uence while others serve as controls that are not easily

Creating and Sharing NewKnowledge for Rural Development

Figure 8: Hot and Cold Spots for Clusters of Self-Employment Shares, 2004

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development14

changed. While the literature on self-employ-ment or proprietorship formations is sizeable, empirical research on the returns to self-employ-ment is virtually non-existent. A major contribu-tion of the present study is to reveal why the returns to self-employment vary over space.

Counties with older, more highly-educated and wealthier populations also had higher self-em-ployment rates, as predicted. Likewise, counties with more foreign-born populations and greater ethnic diversity have higher rates of self-employ-ment, but higher foreign-born shares are associ-ated with lower earnings from self-employment. These results likely refl ect a combination of cultural factors as well as labor market discrimi-nation on the one hand, and greater tolerance for newcomers, on the other.

College completion conveys no earnings ad-vantage to the self-employed and having a high school but no college degree entails an earnings penalty relative to not having completed high school. Greater wealth and access to capital raise the returns to self-employment while the effect of experience on earnings follows an inverted-U, reaching a maximum at age 37. Greater reliance on federal welfare payments in the population is

associated with higher self-employment rates but lower returns to self-employment.

Counties in which more residents voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2000 had higher rates of self-employment and returns to self-employment in these counties also were higher. This result is attributed to a stronger “en-trepreneurial spirit” in these counties and fewer rules and regulations to thwart self-employment efforts.

Results for the effects of creative class-type variables are mixed. Patent activity leads to more self-employment but not to higher earnings. The presence of art dealerships is associated with higher self-employment rates (weakly) and earn-ings while musical instrument supply stores are associated with lower self-employment rates and have no effect on earnings.

Big-box retailers, especially Wal-Mart™, have been maligned recently for their effects on local communities. This study fi nds that while the presence of Wal-Mart stores depresses self-em-ployment rates it may also raise the returns to self-employment. This supports the Schumpet-erian prediction of creative destruction whereby

the surviving self-employed are more productive as a result of competitive pressures.

Local business service providers allow the self-employed to out-source non-core functions, raising their profi tability. Among the six types of providers studied here, temporary help and child daycare services stand out for being as-sociated with both higher rates of self-employ-ment and greater returns. Childcare services are not typically viewed as a constraint to expanded entrepreneurship but they warrant greater atten-tion. Couriers and messengers, and offi ce supply and stationary stores are associated with signifi -cantly higher earnings, but their presence does not affect self-employment rates. Surprisingly, greater availability of business support services is associated with signifi cantly lower returns to self-employment.

Other previously omitted establishment types that may affect entrepreneurship and self-em-ployment are local post-secondary educational institutions. The presence of junior colleges; business schools and computer and manage-ment training establishments; and technical and trade schools is associated with higher returns to self-employment. However, only technical and

2006 Annual Report 15

trade schools are associated with higher self-em-ployment rates. An opportunity clearly exists for expanding the roles of colleges, universities and professional schools in stimulating local rates of and returns to entrepreneurship.

The self-employed respond rationally to fi nancial incentives refl ected in returns to wage-and-salary employment and self-employment risks. How-ever, higher past returns to self-employment in a county unexpectedly are associated with lower subsequent self-employment rates, perhaps indicating that artifi cial barriers to entry exist in counties with high returns to self-employment. Higher levels of social capital, state right-to-work laws and greater self-employment risks are each associated with higher returns to self-em-ployment.

Counties with natural amenities have propor-tionately more self-employed workers, as do metropolitan counties. Among US regions, the Northeast has higher shares of self-employed workers relative to the South, all else equal. In the West and the Midwest region, returns to self-employment are higher than in the South.

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development16

Another innovation in this study is the use of spatial statistical methods to identify self-em-ployment hot and cold spots. These are county clusters with especially high rates of or returns to self-employment.

Standardized (beta) coeffi cients reveal that the following local factors have the greatest posi-tive effect on non-farm self-employment rates, starting with the most important: 1. the presence of “jack of all trades” farmers; 2. lower returns to wage-and-salary employment, as the oppor-tunity cost of self-employment; 3. greater access to credit; 4. greater availability of child daycare services; and 5. fewer retail fi rms. The statisti-cally largest effects in terms of raising returns to self-employment are exerted by 1. higher histori-cal returns to self-employment (in 2000); 2. an older or more experienced population (up to 37 years of age); 3. lower availability of business support services but 4. greater availability of temporary help services; and 5. fewer high-tech establishments.

2006 Annual Report 17

Conference Presentations Available on the Northeast Center Web SiteWhat Works! Rural Entrepreneurship and Community Development in the Northeast Electronic Proceedings, Burlington, VThttp://www.nercrd.psu.edu/entrepreneur_What_Works_Wksp/TOC.htm

In September 2005, University of Vermont Ex-tension and The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development sponsored the What Works conference to serve as a starting point in a multi-year effort to craft communities of interest among the land grant partners of the northeast along with our many agency and organizational partners working in the areas of entrepreneur-ship, land use, social and community-capital and public policy. The workshop explored new possibilities for collaboration across institutional and politi-cal boundaries.

Proceedings from the Northeast Land Use (NEELUN) Strategic Planning Meeting, October 11-12, 2006, Philadelphia, PA.http://www.nercrd.psu.edu/NEELUN/MeetingProceedings.pdf

Notes from the Northeast Listening Sessions on Rural Entrepreneurship and links to RUPRI’s Center for

Rural Entrepreneurship can be found on the NERCRD web site: http://www.nercrd.psu.edu/NEListeningSessions/index.html

NETworking in Tourism: People, Places, & Partnerships, 2006 National Extension Tourism Conference, Burlington, VThttp://www.esf.edu/NET2006/

The National Extension Tourism Conference is sponsored every two years by the National Extension Tourism Design Team, a USDA-mandated committee of tourism and recreation extension professionals that seek to improve net-working opportunities for educators in the fi eld of tourism and recreation, and expand national tourism and recreation initiatives. The key-note speakers at NET 2006 were Don Meehan, Director, Washington State University Exten-sion, Island County and Ted Eubanks, President, Fermata, Inc.

Other ScholarlyWorks

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development18

Books and Book Chapters“Economics and Contemporary Land Use Policy Development and Conservation at the Rural-Ur-ban Fringe,” Robert J. Johnston and Stephen K. Swallow, editors. RFF Press, May 2006. 288 pp.

Published by Resources for the Future, this book builds on the Land Use Policy Workshop sponsored by The Northeast Regional Center

for Rural Development and held in conjunction with the 2002 annual meeting of the Northeast Agricultural and Resource Economics Association. As external forces increase the demand for land conversion, communities are increasingly open to

policies that encourage conservation of farm and forest lands. This interest in conservation notwithstanding, the consequences of land-use policy and the drivers of land conversions are often unclear. One of the fi rst books to deal exclusively with the economics of rural-urban sprawl, “Economics and Contemporary Land-Use Policy,” explores the causes and conse-quences of rapidly accelerating land conversions in urban-fringe areas, as well as implications for effective policy responses.

Peer-Reviewed Journal ArticlesGoetz, Stephan J. and Anil Rupasingha, “Wal-Mart and Social Capital,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88, 5 (December 2006): 1304-1310.

Rupasingha, Anil, Stephan J. Goetz and David Freshwater, “The Production of Social Capital in US Counties,” Journal of Socio-Economics 35 (2006) 83-101.

Goetz, Stephan J. and Hema Swaminathan, “Wal-Mart and Family Poverty in US Counties,” Social Sciences Quarterly, 83, 2 (2006): 211-225.

Rupasingha, Anil and Stephan J. Goetz, “Social and Political Forces as Determinants of Pov-erty,” Journal of Socio-Economics (2006), in press.

Zimmerman, J., S.J. Goetz and D. Debertin, “People and Places: Welfare Reform and the Separate Effect of Caseload Characteristics and Local Conditions,” Sociological Spectrum, 26, 2006: 289-308.

Manuscripts in ProgressGoetz, Stephan J., “The Economic Case for State-Level Land Use Decision-Making,” in press at Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy.

Goetz, Stephan J. et al. “Is Local Government Fragmentation Associated with Higher Rates of New Home Construction?” in preparation for the ICA/NASULGC Trans-Atlantic Confer-ence on the Science and Education of Land Use, Washington DC, September 24-26, 2007.

Goetz, Stephan J. and Sundar S. Shrestha, “Ex-plaining Self-Employment Success and Failure: Wal-Mart vs. Starbucks or Schumpeter vs. Put-nam,” for Social Science Quarterly.

Goetz, Stephan J., Sundar S. Shrestha and Anil Rupasingha, “Proprietorship Formations and US Job Growth,” pres. at the Southern Regional Sci-ence Association Annual Conference, 2006, for Review of Regional Studies.

Grassmueck Georg, et al., “Youth Out-Migra-tion from Pennsylvania: The Roles of Govern-ment Fragmentation vs. the Beaten Path Effect,” Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy.

2006 Annual Report 19

Several conferences and workshops were spon-sored or co-sponsored by The Northeast Center in 2006. One workshop brought together key community development contacts to develop a strategic plan to address entrepreneurship issues in the northeast region, while a second strate-gic planning workshop was held to discuss land use issues. The Northeast Extension Land Use Network (NEELUN) was expanded, and a new community development network, Northeast Community and Entrepreneurship Network, was created.

Meetings Attended, Presentations MadeAttended NACDEP 2006, San Antonio, TX, February 12-16, 2006 (Rod Howe and Pam Hearn).

Presented at the Northeastern Regional Associa-tion (NERA) of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors Meeting, State College, PA, March 28-29, 2006 (Martin Shields).

Attended the SRSA meeting, Jacksonville, FL, March 30-April 1, 2006 (Stephan Goetz and Martin Shields).

Attended National CRD meeting, Washington, DC, May 23-25, 2006 (Rod Howe).

Attended National Rural Funders Collabora-tive Assets and Opportunities Consultation, Washington, DC, May 30-June 1, 2006 (Martin Shields).

Connecting Rural Communities: Cooperative Extension as a Catalyst, Philadelphia, PA, June 6-7, 2006 (Rod Howe, Pam Hileman, Pam Hearn).

Building Entrepreneurial Communities, Phila-delphia, PA, June 7-8, 2006 (Rod Howe, Pam Hileman, Pam Hearn).

Moderated at the 2006 Annual AAEA Meeting, “Envisioning the Future,” Long Beach, CA, July 23-26, 2006 (Martin Shields).

Networking Regionallyand Nationally

Presented at the Northeast States Association for Agricultural Stewardship (NSAAS) Eastern Regional Conference, Philadelphia, PA, July 30, 2006. (Martin Shields).

NET 2006 National Extension Tourism Con-ference, Burlington, VT, September 10-13, 2006. Presentation on Comparing the Needs of Tourism-Based Businesses with Perceptions of Tourism Development Organizations: Results of a survey from Pennsylvania and West Virginia, Martin Shields and David Hughes (presented by David Hughes). Conference attended by Pam Hearn.

Moderated at the Penn State Rural Interest Meeting, State College, PA, October 6, 2006 (Stephan Goetz).

NEELUN, Northeast Extension Land Use Network fall meeting, Philadelphia, PA, October 11-12, 2006 (Rod Howe, Pam Hileman).

Attended “Exploring Rural Entrepreneurship: Imperatives and Opportunities for Research,” Washington DC, October 26-27, 2006. (Stephan Goetz).

RRDC Combined Annual Meeting, Lied Cen-ter, Nebraska City, NE, November 14-16, 2006 (Stephan Goetz, Pam Hileman, Pam Hearn).

Building Networks to Address Key Issues in the Northeast Region

Building Entrepreneurial Communities, June 2006, Philadelphia, PA

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development20

In 2006 The Center funded three Sustainable Community Grants in collaboration with North-east SARE (Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education). As a result of the 2006 grants the Appa-lachian Initiaive was formed in partnership with the Appa-lachian Regional Commision (ARC). The purpose of the awards is to support sustain-able agriculture either by adding value to farm products or by exploring alternative renewable energy. The Northeast Center is now in year two of the $319,859 NRI-funded multi-state, multi-functional and multi-disciplinary Small Farms Industry Cluster grant.

NRI GrantUSDA/NRI Small Farms Industry Cluster grant No. 05-55618-15744 ($319,859).

2006 Progress Report Information gathered from interviews with key members of small farm clusters has im-mense potential for improv-ing the vitality of small US farms and rural communities. Existing clusters, which have not been studied systematical-ly within agriculture, provide an ideal framework for under-standing how complex eco-nomic, social, biological and environmental forces interact in agricultural communities,

and how small farms connect to rural communi-ties through local processing and marketing. In September 2005 a strategic planning meeting was held in State College, PA to fi nalize the research implementation plan for the project. A manage-ment team was established to set up and record interviews with clusters related to commodities (dairy, wine, mushrooms); agricultural practices or philosophies (organic vs. non-organic); and social or ethnic networks (Portuguese, Hispanic, Hmong, female farmers). This management team has held conference calls about every other week since the beginning of the project. Clus-ter liaisons were interviewed prior to the actual cluster member interviews. Fifty-two farmer in-terviews have been completed, including Chesa-peake Fields: 17; Hmong Farmers: 6; Mushroom Cluster: 1; New Farmer Development Project: 5; New York Certifi ed Organic: 6; North Coun-try Dairy Viability Initiative: 6; Pennsylvania

Expanding the RegionalFunding Portfolio

2006 Annual Report 21

information to small farms and rural communi-ties. Measurements of cluster characteristics and effectiveness will result in improvements that will eventually benefi t American agriculture. It is too early in the project for us to report impact, but the participants (research subjects) all see the value of the effort and are participating with great enthusiasm.

Publications Related to GrantGoetz, S.J. et al., 2005. Introduction to The Small Farm Industry Clusters (SFIC) Project. The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development, Rural Development Paper no. 29: 32pp. http://www.cas.nercrd.psu.edu/Publications/rdppapers/rdp29.pdf

Goetz, S.J. et al., 2006. “The Small Farms In-dustry Clusters (SFIC) Project,” abstract in D. Ebodaghe, Editor, Proceedings of the Fourth National Small Farms Conference, October 16-19, 2005, Koury Convention Center, Greens-boro, NC, pp. 167-170.

Other Grants and SubcontractsThe Progress Fund, “Evaluation Research and Strategy Development for the Tourism Enterprise Development Activities of the Progress Fund,” $59,983.

Women’s Ag Network: 7; and Tuscarora Organic Growers:4. Most interviews have taken place and interviewers are currently writing summaries from the interviews; the management team has begun to pull recurring themes from the data for analysis. The management team met November 6-7, 2006, to review themes and discuss next steps. Focus groups consisting of key cluster members are now being formed to generate basic background information regarding existing clusters, such as cluster history and the develop-ment of existing clusters. Information collected from these focus groups will be used to study what works well in developing clusters as well as the challenges and barriers related to maintaining cluster success. An abstract of a paper on agri-cultural clusters has been accepted for inclusion in a special issue of the Journal of the Commu-nity Development Society on ag and community sustainability.

ImpactConducting systematic studies and analyzing results of data from successful clusters will gen-erate results that will help provide much needed

“... I am really thrilled to be involved in [this project] and I really believe that this small farm clusters project you are work-ing on is something that probably has been needed for many years in many other industries.” --project participant.

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development22

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, S.J. Goetz, “Understanding the Place-Based Structural Determinants of Entrepreneur-ship,” $20,000.

Kellogg Rural Entrepreneurship Initiative, subcontract with Washington State University, $17,500.

National eCommerce Extension Initiative, subcontract with the SRDC/MS State University, Economic Diversity Conference (Connecting Rural Communities), $20,000.

Grants Co-funded2006 SARE Sustainable Community Grants funded by The Northeast Regional Center.

New Ag-Venture Support Program, Ora Rothfuss III, County of Wayne, Lyons, NY. $9,250

A majority of Wayne County farmers indicated that the next generation of their family will probably not be farming (62 percent, according to a 1994 Wayne County Agriculture and Farm-land Protection Board survey). There is an iden-tifi ed interest in starting a small farm business, and there are approximately 5,500 parcels of land in the county that are between ten and sev-enty acres in size. The towns in Wayne County

2006 Annual Report 23

Total FY 2006 Funds: $542,927

CSREES Core57%

Non-Federal10%

NERA Off the Top8%

Penn State5%

Federal20%

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development24

have recently updated their comprehensive plans, and the role of agriculture has been highlighted signifi cantly more than in previous plans.

To address these problems, Wayne County will 1) develop a New and Beginning Farmer Resource web page that brings the many existing resources to one easily accessed point of information; 2) offer the “Exploring the Small Farm Dream” workshop for rural and suburban landowners and; utilize the American Farmland Trust “Plan-ning for Agriculture” workbook and a farmer panel to train Town Planning Board and Zoning Board members on agricultural issues as they relate to town zoning law.

Canandaigua Lake Foodshed: Farm-to-Caf-eteria Program, Deborah Denome, Seeking Common Ground, Inc., Naples, NY. $9,053

This collaborative project will raise awareness about using local farm produce and products in institutions, and address the low volume of local foods being utilized by institutions in the Canan-daigua Lake Foodshed region of New York. To raise awareness of the benefi ts and opportuni-ties of using local foods, Food Service Directors from local schools, hospitals, colleges, elder care facilities, daycare facilities, corporate cafeterias and more, will be invited to a “Breakfast with Farmers” event, to meet local farmers, and hear presentations from those who are already suc-cessfully buying and selling local foods for use in institutional food service. Common barriers will be identifi ed and addressed. At least four institu-tions will be selected to participate in an interac-tive process to establish vibrant farm-institution

partnerships. The goal will be to increase the use of local foods at these institutions by fi ve to ten percent over twelve months while planting the seeds for these types of partnerships to become the norm, rather than the exception, in the Canandaigua Lake Foodshed.

South Hero Land Trust Farm Initiative, Chris Gordon, South Hero Land Trust, South Hero, VT. $2,189

USDA census fi gures show that both the num-ber of farms and the number of acres being farmed in Grand Isle County, Vermont dropped by approximately twenty fi ve percent between 1997 and 2002. Despite the area’s long growing season (compared to other areas of Vermont) and an abundance of fl at, fertile land, farmers are fi nding it increasingly diffi cult to maintain profi tability. Over the course of 2005, South Hero Land Trust used a combination of inter-views with local farmers and food distributors (restaurants and local groceries), and a consumer survey to see where the challenges and oppor-tunities lie in promoting local agriculture. Using results from this research, the concept for the South Hero Land Trust Farm Initiative came into being with the goal of promoting the long-term viability of agriculture in South Hero and the Lake Champlain Islands.

Producers, consumers, and food distributors commonly feel that more can be done to cre-ate stronger linkages between the various enti-ties that comprise a local agricultural system. The South Hero Land Trust Farm Initiative

2006 Annual Report 25

will enhance these relationships through: 1) a Champlain Islands Grown guide to local agri-culture featuring local farms and distributors of local agricultural products, 2) Champlain Islands Farmers’ Market Education Program consisting of six educational “theme” days at the market, and 3) the creation of the Farm Initiative Steer-ing Committee comprised of consumers, pro-ducers, and food distributors who will help guide the course of the initiative. Collectively, these efforts will increase agriculture’s visibility in the Champlain Islands community and ideally result in greater interest in supporting local farms while creating new partnerships that will foster a positive future for Grand Isle county agriculture.

In the Planning StageSARE 2007 Community Grants ($25,000)

We have received forty grant applications which are currently being reviewed.

Evolution of Northeast Center Funding, 1999-2006

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

In $

'000

s

Leverage CSREES Core Total

Number of Unique Visitors or Users of the Northeast Center's Website

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Apr-9

9Oc

t-99

Feb-

00M

ay-0

0Au

g-00

Nov-

00Fe

b-01

May

-01

Aug-

01No

v-01

Feb-

02M

ay-0

2Au

g-02

Nov-

02Fe

b-03

May

-03

Aug-

03No

v-03

Feb-

04M

ay-0

4Au

g-04

Nov-

04Fe

b-05

May

-05

Aug-

05No

v-05

Feb-

06M

ay-0

6Au

g-06

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development26

Visitors Who Visited the Northeast Center's Website More Than Once

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

Apr-9

9Oc

t-99

Feb-

00M

ay-0

0Au

g-00

Nov-

00Fe

b-01

May

-01

Aug-

01No

v-01

Feb-

02M

ay-0

2Au

g-02

Nov-

02Fe

b-03

May

-03

Aug-

03No

v-03

Feb-

04M

ay-0

4Au

g-04

Nov-

04Fe

b-05

May

-05

Aug-

05No

v-05

Feb-

06M

ay-0

6Au

g-06

The Pennsylvania State University is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to programs, facilities, admission, and employment without regard to personal characteristics not related to ability, performance, or qualifi cations as determined by University policy or by state or federal authorities. The Pennsylvania State University does not discriminate against any person because of age, ancestry, color, disability or handicap, national origin, race, religious creed, sex, sexual orientation, or veteran status. Direct all inquiries regarding the nondiscrimination policy to the Affi rmative Action Director, The Pennsylvania State University, 328 Boucke Building, University Park, PA 16802-5901; Tel. (814) 865-4700/V; (814) 863-1150/TTY. 01/01/2007

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural DevelopmentThe Pennsylvania State University7 Armsby BuildingUniversity Park, PA 16802-5602

814/863-4656814/863-0586 FAXnercrd@psu.eduhttp://www.cas.nercrd.psu.edu